Page 82 of 187
133
A
132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):-I'll go through the speeches one by one. First of all, Mr. Kenneth Lo said that, in his opinion, under Standing Orders, the appointment of committees and delegations of power could best be done in Standing Committee, but I disagree with him. I think that that sort of matter is the root of the whole functioning of the Urban Council and is certainly to be done in public so that the public know who are the Members, what are they delegated with powers to do and certainly any amendments to Standing Orders must be made in public unless we are resolved to carry out the business in camera which is really what we are doing at present. He queried the expression "provided this delegation does not do away with the necessity for adopting formally by vote in open meeting any matter previously requiring to be passed in such a way." Now, many Members have experienced what was by custom, if not under our previous procedure, passed in open meeting. In fact, anything that is important to the public and which interests the public to know what we are doing. Now only such motions or such things are brought up in open meeting which best show to the public ourselves in the best possible light. That, in my opinion, is wrong. Everything should be made known and not hidden in the camera proceedings that we are more and more resorting to at present.
Now Mr. SIN dealt more with the legal aspect. I simply say that when he said the Section 36(4), and Members know what Section 36(4) is about, is sufficient to inform the public about the Urban Council and that it is better to do everything else in fact in camera, then I disagree with him; and I disagree that Government in camera is the best Government, whether it be municipal or central. He cited, fair enough perhaps, an example of a temporary loan which can now be dealt with by Standing Committee. Well, I remember, I think, a most heated argument on one temporary loan. Again I say that heated argument should have been in public, not in private. Then Dr. Denny HUANG-I am not dealing with parts that I consider a personal attack on myself because they are not relevant to the subject and they ought not to have been said, in fact, I disagree with them. But his main objection is not to discuss in public any matter already decided at Standing Committee. Now that in my submission, in my opinion, is precisely what I am objecting to. The public has the right to know what is important to the public and decided in Standing Committee. I am not objecting if the Chairman wants to raise it in Standing Committee first, although I would be equally content if the first we heard about it was in public meeting. But to object to discussing in public any matter decided in camera is the basis of an eventual totalitarian system of Government, and I say that
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
that advisably. He did say, marginally relevant, that the Elected Members do not have private personal meetings. He is wrong of course as usually so (Laughter). They do, but we got nowhere. There are very strong differences of opinion. We have a nice lunch but nothing has ever been decided and recently they have not been held. I do question the advisability of these regular lunch or dinner parties held by the Appointed Members. They are, in fact, in the majority if they are united, and usually they are, their opinions are therefore usually formed at a private meeting over dinner or over lunch and somehow or other, that isn't right. Therefore, although, please do not take me wrong, I am not saying to the Appointed Members "don't hold your meetings", but I do query whether when they come to decide policies of the Urban Council that they should be decided over a lunch or dinner party.
MR. PETER P. K. NG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, on the point of personal clarification, I do take exception to the remarks from Mr. Brook BERNACCHI. Especially for me, I can say for myself, the opinion I formed was never, never yet arrived at a luncheon meeting of the Appointed Members. (Laughter)
MR. BERNACCHI (in English):-I am pleased to hear that. I am pleased also to hear that from the remarks made by Mr. NG, you rarely attend those meetings. Now, as regards Mr. TSIN, I thought he said that the Chinese version of the motion was different from the English. I apologize if that's so. The motion is moved in English, therefore, the Chinese is the translation and if the Chinese translation is wrong, it should not be wrong. I am sorry, but it is very clear in English that the object of the resolution is to go back to the pre-14th August, 1973 procedure and that I think clarifies a point that was made by Mr. TSIN. Otherwise, he seemed to be almost "sitting on the fence" to use an English expression except that at the end of the speech he said that my motion would produce daily public meetings. Of course, that is just untrue. Before the 14th August, 1973, we met once a month, and we will continue to meet once a month whether or not my motion today is passed.
Now Mr. T. S. Lo objected to the impression that the Council was hiding anything and he said that nothing is hidden and that theme is taken by Mr. MACKENZIE. He said that the question of legality was not for him. Well, I've never questioned the legality of what the Standing Committee does, because the effect of the motion, although not appreciated by me at the time, the legal effect of the motion I would accept as far as the Council's legal advisors have said, but both of them harp on the fact "all is not hidden, all is disclosed",
Page 82 of 187
133
A
132